As a part of the Summer collection, J.Crew is offering the Astria Sandals. The sandals come in two versions: the Metallic Astria Sandals (Item 26253; $108.00, now $69.50) and the Suede Astria Sandals (Item 26252; $88.00; now $59.50).
They both share the following description in common:For the foot that needs a little more coverage (no judgment), we've created a broader, triangular T-strap that's fresh and flattering with any outfit—and we do mean any outfit.Ha ha ha! They totally do judge you for needing "more coverage" by saying they don't! And what does "needs a little more coverage" even mean? First, I was worried about J.Crew thinking my wrists were too fat (refer to the "J.Crew's Pinning Habit {c'mon now!}" post), but now this? ;)
A big "thanks!" to Mia (in this post) who made a humorous observation about them:Did anyone else find the blurb about the Astria sandals weird?
"For the foot that needs a little more coverage (no judgment), we've created a broader triangular T-strap that's fresh..."
Umm. "No judgement" ???? Seriously? That sentence is fraught with judgement!! And it's not like the sandals are totally covering up the foot either. IMO you have to have a narrow foot to carry off that style. Insulting much, J Crew?
What are your thoughts on the Astria Sandals descriptions? Do you think J.Crew is judging (or not judging) those customers with foot-coverage needs? ;)
But yet that strap arrangement totally gives you cankles.
ReplyDeleteHah! Yet another spot for manufactured body anxiety! What an oddly snide little caption.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Raina, those shoes are cankle material. The 08 and 09 Dauphines were much cuter. (Too bad the metallic finish on my Dauphines looks horrible, though.)
Really? I thought it was kind of funny. Unexpected lines like that remind you that catalog/website copy is written by a real person, not just some faceless corporation. Besides, some people have feet that just aren't cute and may appreciate the extra material. I know that my feet have their share of callouses from years of marathon training, and I like knowing that there's a sandal option that doesn't involve me inflicting my beat up feet on everyone around me!
ReplyDeleteI think its a good quirky line too, a fun bit of copywriting that entertains and informs.
ReplyDeleteI think a lot of folk with bunions will be thankful for this style, so many people have hang ups about exposing their feet in summer.
How about offering some longer skirts for those whose nether regions need more "coverage"?
ReplyDeletelol @ mary.
ReplyDeletenevermind the sandals, that dress is serious "questionable item of the week" material.
And soon to be offered: Cosabella briefs "When your buttocks need a little more coverage (we're not judging) ...."
ReplyDeleteHow about a little more coverage for the suiting dresses, as exposed breasts aren't kosher at my office :-)
I agree that my thighs would like a little more coverage from J Crew's skirts. My feet are just fine, thank you very much.
ReplyDeleteI know a lot of people with unattractive feet, but that isn't the area of the feet that is usually ugly. Usually it is the bunions and little piggies that would do better to be hidden rather than the top of the feet.
Cass,
ReplyDeleteWhat's wrong with the dress? I had one just like it back in the 80's. ;)
The funny thing is I ordered these sandals and they're going back because they are the least flattering sandals I've tried this summer. They completely expose your toes, and both sides of your feet all the way around - I guess so those bunions and callouses can breathe. The nicest part of my foot, the top, is covered w/a swatch of leather. Strappy sandals are so much more flattering to my feet!
ReplyDeleteHexicon - another reason they're going back is because the finish looks like it could possibly chunk off like flakes of skin. There's a reason these items end up in the sale section before all the others!
YES!!!!!!!!! to skirts that can be worn in a conservative office outside NYC. We don't all work in advertising and fashion in the big city.
ReplyDeleteI contrast this with the extreme sizing discrepancies on some of their garments, and my head explodes.
ReplyDeleteJ.Crew's shoes are way too long and narrow for my feet. My feet are wide, but they are of average length so I am not really sure what that's about. The shoes are extremely uncomfortable anyway, because for some reason J.Crew doesn't see a need to pad the insoles. At all. Ever. But anyway.
On top of that, some of the clothes are ridiculously over-sized (Caprese tunic) and others are under-sized (skinny-leg pants of any variety). I have sizes XS to M from J.Crew in my closet, and it all fits me.
So yes, I'll be taking J.Crew's assessment of my foot size/appearance with a grain of salt. I agree with LBH and others that J.Crew should concern themselves with offering more coverage elsewhere as well. I love their tops and skirts, but the plunging necklines and rising hemlines of late just haven't been doing it for me.
P.S. If anyone is curious, I posted a review of the Caprese tunic that I was just talking about on my blog:
http://prettyaddictedblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/jcrew-croquet-stripe-caprese-tunic.html
Totally agreed with IRL - these sandals will expose all your cracked heels, callouses and ingrown toenails!
ReplyDeleteI work in an office in NYC, an exposed breasts/thighs don't go over well here either. I don't think they want to dress working women anymore. All skirts for teenagers/college students.
ReplyDeleteI am predicting the effie dress to end up in the sale section for 19.99 by the end of the summer.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteITA wit IRL and Pansy--to the extent that these shoes offer more "coverage," it's not the part of the foot that needs help.
ReplyDeleteIRL, your instincts were good. My Dauphines look disgusting (as do most of my JC metallic leather products) because the metallic finish has worn off the footbed, leaving bare brown leather spots.
Lately I have been expressing some doubts about my future with JC, because their professional clothing seems designed for the "oldest profession" and a lot of their casual clothing is flimsy, repetitive, disposable, and frankly too young for me. (JC apparently responded by kicking me off the catalog list notwithstanding my years as a customer and cardholder.) A lot of us here have been more excited about Talbots. So, I was perusing the Talbots FB page, I saw a ton of posts (mostly women my age and older) begging Talbots to stick with its classic roots and not to go trendy and sleazy. I guess it happens to everyone!
I bet it was a senseless guy writing up these descriptions!
ReplyDeleteI saw these sandals IRL and not worth the price. The footbed/sole is cheaply made. Regenerated footbed is rather stiff and cheap looking.
It was an odd description, agreed. I got caught up in the crewlade and ordered them in the suede. Arrived yesterday and are not attractive at all. Going back!
ReplyDeleteFug. Just say no.
ReplyDelete